OutWest wrote:Hitler was a LOSER. Temporary gains and then total loss of his country and death of hundreds of thousands of his own for NOTHING. Monster Mao conquered all of China and then some and kept his gains. Of course, as China went to more free enterprise, Mao's efforts and philosophy are fading.

Assuming he was on the level - not a British agent or whatever - it is not really his fault that he lost. The forces the banksters arrayed against Germany were just too great for there to be any guarantee of success. I think the Germans were outnumbered initially 4 to 1 and then about 10 to one. They were also hampered by the dismantling of their arms industry following WWI. I doubt anyone could have done much better under the circumstances.

Cornfed wrote:Assuming he was on the level - not a British agent or whatever - it is not really his fault that he lost. The forces the banksters arrayed against Germany were just too great for there to be any guarantee of success. I think the Germans were outnumbered initially 4 to 1 and then about 10 to one. They were also hampered by the dismantling of their arms industry following WWI. I doubt anyone could have done much better under the circumstances.

If Hitler hadn't been racist, he would have won the war. The Jews that he hated were liberal German Jews. And I certainly would have no problem with Hitler exterminating liberals, including Jewish liberals, to save German culture. But most technological advances, including the atomic bomb, were developed by Jews who weren't liberals. In fact most of them were Hungarian Jews, like my parents, who were completely unpolitical and only interested in math and science. These Jews would have remained in Hungary if Hitler hadn't scared them away, and they would have developed the atomic bomb and other technology for Hitler if Hitler had respected non-liberal Judaism. And in this case, Hitler would have won.

OutWest wrote:If you suppose for a minute that Hitler did not kill a single Jew or Gypsy, that he merely sent them off to permanent detainment at vacation resorts and spas, German archives clearly document that he murdered tens of thousands of Germans who opposed him. Germans tend to be very good record keepers that way. The ability to give a rousing speech means little. Hitler regarded the masses as idiots and fools. At least that opinion is continually validated as we see here, so yes, he was an astute observer of human nature. His judgment in matters of industrial capacities and Geo-political outcomes was not as great, so Germany was reduced to utter ruin. So much for being a jobs creator for the long haul. Of course, Stalin and Mao had even larger heaps of bodies to their credit...so they must be admired for their efficiency and organizational skills I suppose. Then again, they had a much longer run, so who can say, but to this day they all have their admirers...does not say much for humanity, does it?

Yeah but how does that make Hitler any worse than other conquerors? Many other legendary conquerors did the same. They killed many in their wars and battles and executed a lot of people they didn't like, or as punishment. Did you read my question earlier? You didn't answer it.

Hitler did what many famous conquerors did. How does that make him the most evil man in history? How is he any worse than Alexander the Great or Napoleon? Alexander also believed that the Greeks were a superior race to the Persians. And Napoleon believed the French were a superior race too. Caesar and the Romans believed they were superior too. So what's new? How is Hitler worse than all the rest?

Mao was not a conqueror. He merely competed against the KMT Nationalist Party for power in China and won. He did not conqueror other countries or win battles against other nations.

If the US, Russia and Britain declared war on Mao, he would have lost too.

If Hitler had not invaded Russia and not lost his 3 million man army there, he could have used it to maintain his conquests in Europe. With 4 million troops in Europe, the US and Britain would have had to sacrifice millions of troops to liberate Europe. I'm not sure if the US and the American people would have been willing to do that. So Hitler would have been able to keep his empire longer if he hadn't made war with Russia.

fschmidt wrote:
I am comparing them since you seem to like mass murders. Mao was a conqueror. He conquered China and Tibet. Unlike Hitler, he actually kept his gains. Hitler lost and Mao won. So you prefer losers to winners? What Mao lacked in charisma, he made up for in intelligence and political skills. So you prefer charisma to real skills? Mao unified China. Hitler caused Germany to lose the war, to be demolished and divided.

Of course I don't admire either of these men. I don't admire mass murders. But you seem to admire mass murders, particularly those who are losers and don't even accomplish their own goals.

I never said that I liked mass murderers. You are putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say that I admired serial killers too? I made a list of Hitler's accomplishments that are admirable. Didn't you see it? Nowhere on the list did I put "mass murder" as one of his admirable qualities.

He was not a loser. Losers don't conqueror Europe. Could you have conquered Europe? By your logic, then Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon are losers too. They lost in the end, but they conquered a lot of territory. Empires don't last forever. But only great men can conqueror Europe.

Stalin was not a great conqueror. He was not good in military strategy. His armies had the highest casualties of WWII. All he did was kill a lot of his own people frivolously. He only conquered Germany and Eastern Europe because he had unlimited resources in manpower and help from the Allies. He used brute force in numbers to win, not military strategy. If the Allies hadn't given him tanks and weapons, he might have caved in.

HouseMD wrote:Like I said, he was very misguided. He viewed his people as the best of mankind and that they should inherit all of the earth so that a great culture could rise from the cream of the crop of humanity. It was a "do great evil in the name of a greater good" sort of mentality that was completely insane but self justifiable to adherents.

Not a great culture, but a great race. Hitler's fundamental flaw was racism. If he had focused on culture instead of race, he would have won the war and saved humanity from the liberal plague. And then of course I would greatly admire him.

That was one factor, yeah. But his biggest flaw was in fighting wars with too many countries, especially countries that are 50 times larger than Germany, such as Russia and the USA. He probably thought that Russia could be occupied as easily as India was by Britain, and China by Japan. And his flaw was impatience. He was using reckless battle tactics and not listening to his generals. He also made it so that his Generals could not act on their own but had to ok every decision with him first, which caused too many delays and wasted crucial time.

Racism has been the norm all throughout history. It may be natural. A politically correct culture is a recent phenomenon. It's an aberration in history. All great conquerors consider their race to be superior. They use that an an excuse for conquest.

So again, why is Hitler considered the most evil person in the world, according to the American perspective? And why are Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon romanticized, but Hitler isn't?

Winston wrote:Yeah but how does that make Hitler any worse than other conquerors? Many other legendary conquerors did the same. They killed many in their wars and battles and executed a lot of people they didn't like, or as punishment. Did you read my question earlier? You didn't answer it.

Hitler did what many famous conquerors did. How does that make him the most evil man in history? How is he any worse than Alexander the Great or Napoleon? Alexander also believed that the Greeks were a superior race to the Persians. And Napoleon believed the French were a superior race too. Caesar and the Romans believed they were superior too. So what's new? How is Hitler worse than all the rest?

Hitler was a mass murderer. Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar were not.

Mao was not a conqueror. He merely competed against the KMT Nationalist Party for power in China and won. He did not conqueror other countries or win battles against other nations.

China is the size of Europe and has a bigger population. Mao conquered China by war, not politics, so Mao was a conqueror.

If Hitler had not invaded Russia and not lost his 3 million man army there, he could have used it to maintain his conquests in Europe. With 4 million troops in Europe, the US and Britain would have had to sacrifice millions of troops to liberate Europe. I'm not sure if the US and the American people would have been willing to do that. So Hitler would have been able to keep his empire longer if he hadn't made war with Russia.

You obviously never read Mein Kampf and know nothing of history. Hitler's original goal was to take part of Russia to expand Germany. He really didn't want war with the western countries, but he was dragged into it.

I never said that I liked mass murderers. You are putting words in my mouth.

I did not put words into your mouth. I didn't say that you said that you like mass murders, only that you do in fact like mass murderers. And this you can't deny since you like Hitler and Hitler is a mass murderer.

I made a list of Hitler's accomplishments that are admirable. Didn't you see it?

No.

He was not a loser. Losers don't conqueror Europe. Could you have conquered Europe? By your logic, then Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon are losers too. They lost in the end, but they conquered a lot of territory. Empires don't last forever. But only great men can conqueror Europe.

Alexander and Caesar did not lose in the end. Please learn some history. Napoleon was a loser in the end.

Stalin was not a great conqueror. He was not good in military strategy. His armies had the highest casualties of WWII. All he did was kill a lot of his own people frivolously. He only conquered Germany and Eastern Europe because he had unlimited resources in manpower and help from the Allies. He used brute force in numbers to win, not military strategy. If the Allies hadn't given him tanks and weapons, he might have caved in.

Yes Stalin was not a great conqueror, but he still won in the end, putting him ahead of Hitler in terms of results. Not that I admire such results.

Winston wrote:Racism has been the norm all throughout history. It may be natural. A politically correct culture is a recent phenomenon. It's an aberration in history. All great conquerors consider their race to be superior. They use that an an excuse for conquest.

Wrong again as usual. Again, please learn some history. Racism is relatively new. Most great conquerors considered their culture to be superior, not their race.

So again, why is Hitler considered the most evil person in the world, according to the American perspective? And why are Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon romanticized, but Hitler isn't?

Hitler may not be the most evil person in the world, but he is certainly worse than the others you listed here. He is the only mass murderer of this group.

fschmidt wrote:Hitler was a mass murderer. Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar were not.

Of course they were. For example, by some estimates Caesar's campaigns in Gaul are said to have reduced the population from ten million to nine million. Even if this is somewhat exaggerated, that seems like mass murder to me.

Cornfed wrote:For example, by some estimates Caesar's campaigns in Gaul are said to have reduced the population from ten million to nine million. Even if this is somewhat exaggerated, that seems like mass murder to me.

I assume you are referring to Plutarch here, who claimed that Caesar killed one million enemy soldiers in battle. I have no idea where Plutarch got his numbers, and even if correct, these were casualties of war, not murder. If you aren't referring to Plutarch, please give me your source.

Imagine if Hitler had waited 10 to 15 years before invading poland. Imagine how powerful they would have been. The Hitler youth would have been some super brainwashed soldiers for sure. And there's no telling what super technologies they would have that would have easily surpassed every other countries. Such a waste and a shame that Hitler helped create such promise but destroyed Germany and millions of people in the process.

Winston wrote:Yeah but how does that make Hitler any worse than other conquerors? Many other legendary conquerors did the same. They killed many in their wars and battles and executed a lot of people they didn't like, or as punishment. Did you read my question earlier? You didn't answer it.

Hitler did what many famous conquerors did. How does that make him the most evil man in history? How is he any worse than Alexander the Great or Napoleon? Alexander also believed that the Greeks were a superior race to the Persians. And Napoleon believed the French were a superior race too. Caesar and the Romans believed they were superior too. So what's new? How is Hitler worse than all the rest?

Hitler was a mass murderer. Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar were not.

Most conquerors executive captives. Alexander and Napoleon did. Napoleon had Egyptians beheaded when he was in Egypt, where he started behaving like a Middle Eastern king. He had captives executed when he couldn't afford to feed them or let them go.

They also have their political enemies executed too. If you were a conqueror, you'd know that you have to do things like that to remain in power.

Mao was not a conqueror. He merely competed against the KMT Nationalist Party for power in China and won. He did not conqueror other countries or win battles against other nations.

China is the size of Europe and has a bigger population. Mao conquered China by war, not politics, so Mao was a conqueror.

WTF? China is way bigger than all of Europe. Mao rose to power in his own country. That's not considered a conquest. Do you consider that Hitler conquered Germany? You are using the wrong terminology. Even if Mao won power in a civil war, that doesn't make him a conqueror. You don't conquer your own country. You conquer others.

If Hitler had not invaded Russia and not lost his 3 million man army there, he could have used it to maintain his conquests in Europe. With 4 million troops in Europe, the US and Britain would have had to sacrifice millions of troops to liberate Europe. I'm not sure if the US and the American people would have been willing to do that. So Hitler would have been able to keep his empire longer if he hadn't made war with Russia.

You obviously never read Mein Kampf and know nothing of history. Hitler's original goal was to take part of Russia to expand Germany. He really didn't want war with the western countries, but he was dragged into it.

Are you sure you he wrote that? Is it in his original version? Or was that added in to make him look bad? Why would Hitler want Germans to live in Russia and freeze during the winter? It's not the ideal place to live.

I never said that I liked mass murderers. You are putting words in my mouth.

I did not put words into your mouth. I didn't say that you said that you like mass murders, only that you do in fact like mass murderers. And this you can't deny since you like Hitler and Hitler is a mass murderer.

Well then FDR and Harry Truman are mass murderers too. So is George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. You like them too? All leaders kill in order to accomplish objectives. War is murder too.

I made a list of Hitler's accomplishments that are admirable. Didn't you see it?

No.

It's on page 3 or 4 of this thread.

He was not a loser. Losers don't conqueror Europe. Could you have conquered Europe? By your logic, then Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon are losers too. They lost in the end, but they conquered a lot of territory. Empires don't last forever. But only great men can conqueror Europe.

Alexander and Caesar did not lose in the end. Please learn some history. Napoleon was a loser in the end.

Alexander died when he was 32. At that time, his people were beginning to get tired of his wars and wanted out. Had he lived longer, he may have begun losing support and may have started losing battles too.

Caesar was assassinated by the Roman Senate. He failed to protect himself or bring body guards with him, especially since he heard of the plot well in advance. An oracle even told him when he would be assassinated, on the Ides of March, which was March 15. Yet he failed to do anything about it for some reason. No one knows why. It was very uncharacteristic of him to be unprepared like that when he had advance warning. He should have walked into the Senate with body guards and sword drawn, and said "I know of your plot. Stay away from me! All of you!"

Yes Napoleon was defeated. But he isn't named Napoleon the Great for nothing. He still won a lot of battles and was a military genius. Just because one loses in the end doesn't mean they didn't win earlier.

Winston wrote:Racism has been the norm all throughout history. It may be natural. A politically correct culture is a recent phenomenon. It's an aberration in history. All great conquerors consider their race to be superior. They use that an an excuse for conquest.

Wrong again as usual. Again, please learn some history. Racism is relatively new. Most great conquerors considered their culture to be superior, not their race.

I doubt it. Can you name any great conquerors who claimed that all races are equal and the same? Besides, most people are racist deep down, even if they don't admit it. Even today they are. Most women have racial preferences, even liberal women do, though they don't admit it.

So again, why is Hitler considered the most evil person in the world, according to the American perspective? And why are Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon romanticized, but Hitler isn't?

Hitler may not be the most evil person in the world, but he is certainly worse than the others you listed here. He is the only mass murderer of this group.

Why is he worse? And why is he evil? Evil is a very subjective word.

An evil person is someone who knowingly does what he knows to be wrong. Hitler did not knowing do what he knew to be wrong. He was misguided and wrong, yes. But he did not know that he was wrong. So can you really say that he was evil?

This is what you get for being a non-conformist Winston, a bunch of infantile and emotional ad-hominems.
It's funny how this subject unmasks people. I usually throw or suggest your position in conversation to see how stupid..errr..'tolerant' and 'open minded' people really are. I don't give a damn haha.

It's well known who controls the media in America, as much as it is denied, yet in everyone's face. The complete conditioning of the sheep in regards to the "H" issue is systematic and has been perfected throughout the decades.
In answering your main question, "H" dared to call on the "Js", and that's why it is of prime importance to them that anything regarding that is completely and absolutely demonized. That's why you see no other historical figure/movement have so much propaganda dedicated to its disparaging. Every phrase, every sound, etc are charged with bias and assumption of guilt. On every movie the cartoon villains have to even use these weird contact lenses to make them proper 'monsters', lest the movie not pass the Kosher test.

It's an utter joke at this point, but people can't help but respond emotionally, due to all the direct and subliminal conditioning, since childhood.
Add to this the dogma of "America can do no single wrong", and the fact that unfortunately some folks wasted their youths in those battles, and you won't get anything but denial from most crowds.

If you ever reach recognition and the mainstream needs to crush you, they will surely use this sh*t against you. Then they will parade you in 'Maury Povich' or some bullcrap of the sort, crying and apologizing.
You have balls man.

1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?

Winston wrote:Most conquerors executive captives. Alexander and Napoleon did. Napoleon had Egyptians beheaded when he was in Egypt, where he started behaving like a Middle Eastern king. He had captives executed when he couldn't afford to feed them or let them go.

They also have their political enemies executed too. If you were a conqueror, you'd know that you have to do things like that to remain in power.

Why don't you pick one particular example of these conquerors committing mass murder and I will look into it.

WTF? China is way bigger than all of Europe. Mao rose to power in his own country. That's not considered a conquest. Do you consider that Hitler conquered Germany? You are using the wrong terminology. Even if Mao won power in a civil war, that doesn't make him a conqueror. You don't conquer your own country. You conquer others.

Conquering just means taking through war. It makes no difference if it is your own country or another. Hitler took control of Germany through politics, not war, so this wasn't conquest. As for the relative size of China and Europe, it just depends what you count in Europe.

Are you sure you he wrote that? Is it in his original version? Or was that added in to make him look bad? Why would Hitler want Germans to live in Russia and freeze during the winter? It's not the ideal place to live.

Hitler didn't want all of Russia. He just wanted to expand Germany eastward because this was less densely populated. Hitler felt that Germany needed more space. Hitler's original goal wasn't conquering Europe. He had no interest in Western Europe because it was too densely populated. Hitler was actually quite logical about this.

Well then FDR and Harry Truman are mass murderers too. So is George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. You like them too? All leaders kill in order to accomplish objectives. War is murder too.

Wrong, war is not murder. Murder is killing people for no justifiable reason. FDR and Truman killed much fewer people than Hitler, and they killed with reason. (Johnson and Nixon were murderers in Vietnam, but not mass murderers.)

Alexander and Caesar did not lose in the end. Please learn some history. Napoleon was a loser in the end.

Alexander died when he was 32. At that time, his people were beginning to get tired of his wars and wanted out. Had he lived longer, he may have begun losing support and may have started losing battles too.

Caesar was assassinated by the Roman Senate. He failed to protect himself or bring body guards with him, especially since he heard of the plot well in advance. An oracle even told him when he would be assassinated, on the Ides of March, which was March 15. Yet he failed to do anything about it for some reason. No one knows why. It was very uncharacteristic of him to be unprepared like that when he had advance warning. He should have walked into the Senate with body guards and sword drawn, and said "I know of your plot. Stay away from me! All of you!"

Yes Napoleon was defeated. But he isn't named Napoleon the Great for nothing. He still won a lot of battles and was a military genius. Just because one loses in the end doesn't mean they didn't win earlier.

You can speculate all you want, but the bottom line is that Alexander and Caesar kept the territory that they conquered. Everything else is irrelevant to their quality as a conquerer, which is what you claim to admire.

I have never heard of Napoleon referred to as "Napoleon the Great". Where did you get this from?

I doubt it. Can you name any great conquerors who claimed that all races are equal and the same? Besides, most people are racist deep down, even if they don't admit it. Even today they are.

The obsession with race is a modern concept, so great conquerors from history didn't discuss race at all. But you can read about what they did discuss, and that was culture. Read Caesar's The Conquest of Gaul where he repeatedly discusses cultural differences but never mentions race. Islam accepted people of all races as it quickly conquered its empire. Even the Israelites in the Bible readily accepted other races, unlike modern Jews.

Hitler may not be the most evil person in the world, but he is certainly worse than the others you listed here. He is the only mass murderer of this group.

Why is he worse? And why is he evil? Evil is a very subjective word.

Yes it's subjective, but my view is that killing millions of innocent people is evil. What is your view?

An evil person is someone who knowingly does what he knows to be wrong. Hitler did not knowing do what he knew to be wrong. He was misguided and wrong, yes. But he did not know that he was wrong. So can you really say that he was evil?

This is absurd. Almost no one knowingly does what he knows to be wrong. Almost everyone feels justified in whatever they do, no matter how wrong it is. Just look at all the liberal feminists who are pure evil and feel fully justified in their actions.

Have you noticed this: When you hear Hitler speak, that he sounds very passionate and authentic? Even though he may be evil, at least he's not fake, plastic and a bullshitter like Obama and Bush. So Hitler resonates with me more personally, since I'm a very passionate person with strong emotion. But Obama and Bush doesn't resonate with me at all since I'm not fake and I'm not a bullshitter. Even evil people can be genuine and passionate.

I admire things about Hitler, certainly. In high school, I used to be a big admirer of Nazism, and I thought that if I were Nazi enough, White society would accept me and I would get the spoils that White folks have; I was mistaken. Still, I have to admire aspects of Hitler's life, as well as other Nazis such as George Lincoln Rockwell.

Grand Admiral Game taught me how to improve my mindset in order to achieve the success that I wanted in life!

momopi wrote:...what was the Nazi's intentions for conquered, non-Nordic races that were considered unfit for Germanization?

Contrary to what's portrayed in Steven Spielberg movies, the objective wasn't to conquer the world but to restore Germany's territories/full rights, on-par with Britain, and crush communism.
My guess is that hadn't they been outnumbered 5 to 1, at the end the 'cold' war' period would've been with Germany.

1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?